Varga D30: Trimsamsa

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds information annotations cannot express: a cost of 20 credits (Tier 2) and the concrete POST endpoint. It does not describe caching or what the result contains, but the cost disclosure is a genuinely useful behavioral trait for agent planning.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the chart name and formula in one sentence, followed by structured metadata tags. Compact and scannable, though the bracketed tag block is somewhat template boilerplate rather than tool-specific prose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 13-parameter calculation tool with low schema description coverage, the description omits how the optional ayanamsa/zodiac/house-system choices alter the result and what defaults apply. Output schema existence excuses it from explaining return values, but the input-side gap is large.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It repeats only the four required parameters already marked required in the schema, leaving ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem and cosmogram unexplained despite materially changing the computation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names the specific chart (Trimsamsa / D30) and its interpretive domain (misfortunes, evils) plus the formula variant (Parashara unequal segments), which distinguishes it from the other varga siblings beyond the bare D-number. It stops short of saying what the output is or how D30 differs in practice from D27/D40, but an agent can identify the resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use D30 versus the many sibling varga tools (D1, D9, D7, D60...) or versus astroway_specialized_vedic_divisional. The bracketed 'Required' line is a schema restatement, not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.